Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Education, not intelligence, significantly delays family formation

A theme revisited frequently here over the years is that the mildly 'dysgenic' trend occurring in the US is more strongly tied to educational attainment than to intelligence directly.

TFR isn't the whole story. When the ball gets rolling matters, too. The shorter the time between generations, the more descendants the initial progenitor will have X years down the road.

A similarly relationship between educational attainment and total fertility exists between educational attainment and age of first birth (the first inverse, the second positive). The relationship between intelligence and age of first birth is mostly accounted for by educational attainment. Smart high school graduates get started earlier than dullards with doctoral degrees in -studies do.

The following graphs attempt to illustrate as much in a way that is comprehensible without resorting to regression coefficients. The first graph shows the age of first birth by educational attainment for non-Hispanic whites born in the US, participating in the GSS since the year 2000. There are relatively large disparities among people of similar intelligence that correspond strongly to their level of educational attainment:


The second graph shows the age of first birth by intelligence when educational attainment is separated out. The disparities among people of similar educational attainment but differing levels of intelligence are far more modest: 


Parenthetically, the r-values are .37 for educational attainment and age of first birth when wordsum is controlled for and .08 for wordsum and age of first birth when educational attainment is controlled for. That is, educational attainment is more than 4x as strong a predictor of age of first birth as intelligence measured by wordsum score is. 

The idea of universal publicly funded post-secondary education in the US is civilizationally disastrous. It will accentuate several of our problems while alleviating none of them.

GSS variables used: DEGREE(0-1)(2)(3)(4), WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), BORN(1)

23 comments:

JayMan said...

An interesting thing happens when you look at the sexes separately. Education is negatively correlated with fertility for women but positively correlated with such for men. As such that it may balance out.

Readers see also:

Idiocracy Can Wait?


Audacious Epigone said...

Indeed, also see here. Social status matters more for men than for women.

Audacious Epigone said...

It is not, however, the case with age of first birth--educational attainment and wordsum both correlate positively with age of first birth (the more of either, the latter the babymaking). The effect of both is more pronounced in women than in men. Education is 'only' 3x as strong a predictor as IQ for men--for women it is 4.5x as strong of one.

Sid said...

Two thoughts:

1. If you're well educated, it's more likely you will get the kind of white collar workaholic job where you work 10-12 hours a day. Men can work those kinds of hours and still have children if their wives have light work loads. It's simply beyond the capacity of most women to work those kinds of hours and raise a family (pregnancy, birth, and the female role in raising children are all far more time and energy intensive than the process of fathering and raising children is for men. End of story).

It's much easier to have children outside of school than in the midst of an educational program, largely because education dominates your morning and early afternoon hours, and a good program will also dominate your late afternoons, evenings, and even late night hours with homework, readings, projects, papers, etc.

Furthermore, in an educational program, there is a clear purpose at hand: graduate from the program so you can get your degree. In a lot of jobs, maybe most of them, you perform your day to day assignments or duties, but rarely feel a sense of building up to something greater. That lack of purpose is painful for human beings, so they make up for it by having children and find their purpose in raising them.

Education, therefore, greatly hinders reproduction. People come away from high end educational programs with opportunities where they will work long hours. Men can have families with those jobs - women largely can't.

2. Lion of the Blogosphere (formerly Half Sigma) sometimes touches on the matter of what people will do as robots take over more and more of their work roles. Let's say we establish a guaranteed income so people can live comfortably even if they're ultimately unemployable - how should we keep them busy?

A while ago, he concluded we'll probably just have educational programs which last indefinitely. I wouldn't mind being paid to read medieval literature, but what should be done about people with low IQs?

Even if robots and AIs don't take our jobs, that's a worthwhile question. One reason why Europe's TFR is so low is that their public universities allow students to take up various degrees at a low cost.

If we want to limit or at least delay low IQ fertility, it may yet behoove us to have programs similar to education that non-too-bright people will still find rewarding. By the look of things, a lot of universities are filling that niche with classes on Beyonce and identifying microaggressions in increasingly minute contexts.

chris said...

So education and intelligence will become sex selected. High IQ educated white men should be marrying women in their early twenties who don't want to be career women/single mothers.

Alliumnsk said...

Great! I wonder how 'racediff*' variables would look like on such a plot.

dc.sunsets said...

Sid, if there's a Universal Basic Income established, society will collapse within two generations. In fact, it might not even take that long. People who push the UBI are absolute idiots who ignore that all life is dynamic. Set up a model that includes the ability to periodically "vote" on how much that UBI should be. How many iterations are required for the inmates to vote for themselves such a large share of the total pie that pie-making stops entirely and everyone starves?

UBI is a guaranteed way to repeat the laughably stupid notion of giving a factory's employees an equal share of control of the firm (stripping control, of course, from those whose demonstrated acumen led to the erection of the factory in the first place.) It's been tried over and over again, and the result is always the same: a shuttered factory.

Life is struggle. Take away the struggle and most people will self-immolate in no time, mostly by creating a new set of struggles from thin air. UBI is based on a belief in a world of unlimited resources, a world that robots will prove unable to create, too. I find it hilarious to see how people misunderstand the reach of technology; similar kinds of collective folly surrounded the harnessing of electricity.

All roads lead to Idiocracy, collapse, die-off, and (hopefully) rebirth (except amidst an astonishing level of pollution spread by the collapse, e.g., nuke plant "spent" fuel pools melted down.)

There is no reason gleaned from history, none whatsoever, to imagine that collective human behavior is remotely capable of rationally choosing a better path. Those who posit an end to the cyclicality of life must surely have absorbed nothing at all from their biology classes.

The fads of "everyone should go to college" and "the more education the better" are simply symptoms of where we are in the Grand Cycle. Near the top of a long, long ascent it is human nature to think Nirvana is in sight...just as Crude Oil looked certain to hit $500/bbl when it rallied above $140 (and a host of rationalizations for the continuation of its rally splattered every headline.)

The drive for "higer ed" is the same as the assumption that employment in any medically-related field is a sinecure (because "old people.") Both rest on three to five decades of putting everything on the National Mastercard.

Wait until the card is declined.

Feryl said...

"One reason why Europe's TFR is so low is that their public universities allow students to take up various degrees at a low cost."

Europe's been subsidizing hedonistic and self-indulgent behavior for ages, and the current mania for prolonging adolescence (hell, maybe even childhood) with "non-judgemental"/non-conditional subsidies (aka nihilism) for those refusing to get a job, start a family, or even live responsibly have got to go. Say what you will about America, but at least we don't provide expansive health care for every fat ass/drug addict/std ridden whore. Back in the good old days (e.g., the 40's and 50's) we proved that it was possible to provide a reasonable safety net without PC excesses in policy and culture (for example, women were strongly encouraged to not have kids out of wedlock). Dipshits who do drugs and sleep around need to be cut off. Certainly, drastically reducing coverage for "family planning" (e.g., birth control and abortion) is needed, and so is reviving cultural shame about sleeping around and being a drunk or drug addict.

Boomers and X-ers had lots of std's and abortions and "unwise" pregnancies, because they slept around so much after birth control was introduced and the culture was liberalized. Millennials are much less hedonistic, but still, they do stupid crap like their elders did because the culture is still so nihilistic. I do think it's going to be easier for Millennials to bring back shame culture, since they never were that wild; many Boomers wish that things had been different for themselves and future generations, but it's hard for them to really lead any big changes since it would expose hypocrisy on their part.

Dan said...

All hands on deck, massive Repub cucking on amnesty being attempted right now. See Gateway pundit. Paul Ryan desperate to sell out Americans, as always.

Black Death said...

"Free" college education for everybody is a bad idea (I put in the quotes because nothing is ever really free). Pandering millionaire socialist politicians such as Bernie Sanders like to promote it, but they're only buying votes. A large chunk of the population won't benefit from higher education, so their time and the taxpayers' money will be wasted.

In the US and Britain, the average age of obtaining a bachelors degree is around 22. In Germany, where most university education is paid for by the government, it's 26. In addition to free tuition, most of thr German students receive a subsity check from the government every month. How does this work? A few years ago my wife and I were checking into a hotel in a German city with a large university. The hotel had a casino, which the clerk encouraged us to visit (we didn't). However, he warned us not to go there on a particular night, because that's when the university students received their monthly checks, and many of them went straight to the casino to get drunk and gamble them away.

A lot of people have speculated about what will happen when robots take over all the jobs. Well, my answer is - definite maybe. Automation has been eliminating jobs ever since the Industrial Revolution, yet somehow we never get to robot Nirvana. In the last century, lots of jobs have been reduced or eliminated by automation (e.g., telephone operators, bank tellers, agricultural laborers, most assembly line and industrial jobs, to name a few), yet unemployment remains low and employers in many areas can't find enough workers. So I'm not worried, at least in the near-term future, that automation will make most Americans suoerfluous to the labor force. Beyon that? Who knows? As John Maynard Keynes said, "IN THE LONG RUN, WE ARE ALL DEAD."

Feryl said...

The problem of too many dolts going to college and refusing to grow up will eventually solve itself, and not necessarily for logistical reasons, either (if the absurd debt levels and blatant high-ed fraud of the last 20 years weren't enough to deter 2/3 of the population from going to college, then nothing material ever will). It's the striving; too many people from bumfuck North Dakota are ashamed of the prospect that they'll be "left behind" in the hinterlands. I grew up around a lot (white) millennials in my neck of the woods; why is my neighborhood aging so much and getting less white? Answer: many of the (right-half of the bell curve) echo Boomers have piled into universities (at first) and gentrified urban areas/suburban yuppievilles (later) instead of returning to their proleish roots that some of them had. Eventually, some do come back, but some never will (how many 30 or 40 something people are there in San Fran/Denver/Atlanta/NYC etc., who grew up in a different region of the country?).

After 40 years of the rat race, sooner or later people are going to get fed up with spending their lives climbing over each other.

Don't buy the hype that a degree is a commodity that'll never lose it's luster. Many (and sometimes all) important skills can be taught by the employer. Remember apprentice culture? An amateur slowly gains experience and skills by working with a mentor. 40-50-60 years ago, most professions didn't require a degree at all, let alone demand that only people with degrees were eligible to even get an interview.

Ask Bill Gates; IQ and work ethic matter more than a piece of paper. The reality is that over the last 20-30 years, most employers have come to view high ed completion as essentially a test of character. Those who earn a degree are just considered more worthy of the employer's time and money. Eventually people are going to see through the snobbery and elitism at work, including employers, and those who didn't go to college won't be scorned as hapless degenerates.

Also, Agnostic has talked about the elitist connotations of high-ed. Merely possessing credentials becomes something to beat your chest about, with the implication that those who didn't bother must be defective losers. The idea that colleges incubate Leftist crapola is true, but at the same time, modern Leftism (and cuckservatism) is premised on disdaining the kind of people who spent little to no time at college. Proles become foreign and threatening, and not worthy of seriousness. Clearly, these losers couldn't be bothered to "gain smarts" at college, why should anyone give a fuck about them? Many of these striving brains would disdain the hinterlands without the encouragement of toxic academic culture. Most of 'em just get told what they want to hear.

Feryl said...

"Stupid" is an insult that elites (and Leftists) began throwing around a lot more in the 80's, and they've used that kind of demeaning language more and more in the ensuing decades. At some point in the last 40 years, elites began turning their back on the masses, and not surprisingly they try and rationalize it by claiming that most proles are losers who are bitter that they didn't play the game better. If elites refuse to pay more attention to what drives proles, then, well, either the elites get thrown out of power or they hold onto that which they don't deserve, and take the whole place down rather than allowing reforms.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

in an educational program, there is a clear purpose at hand: graduate from the program so you can get your degree

That is feminism's--and to a significant extent, modernity's--greatest deceit. This "clear purpose", like so many other contemporary purposes, are masturbatory (there are exceptions, of course, but those are the, well, exceptions). They reroute people towards things that ultimately do not create human flourishing. For women this is particularly bad because often by the time they realize it, it's too late and they're staring at the prospect of half a century of slow decline chasing the unfulfilling things they're chasing now.

Wrt to the Lion and things for people to do, I considered a smartass conclusion along the lines of "So we need more remedial education--those who can barely make it through high school need at least a decade more of time-consuming post-secondary education after they graduate, while the smart ones shouldn't be allowed to hog all the college space by spending a decade or more there". I elected not to because I get messages occasionally--and more frequently as of late--that someone would like to link to the post for academic purposes but can't on account of something colorful I've written. That's what comments are for, I suppose!

Alliumnsk,

Like this, but among only whites and by education and intelligence. Interesting, thanks.

Chris,

Heartiste calls this BOSSS (Boss-Secretary-Sexual-Strategy). He thinks it may just be what saves the West.

dc.sunsets,

UBI is untenable in a democracy. Raising UBI would be the ultimate populist issue. If we think getting congress to stop perpetually raising the debt ceiling is tough, imagine that x10 and we have what opposing an increase in the UBI would be like.

Bah, life calls. More later.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

the CEO-secretary strategy is very very bad for white people in the long run. I hate WNism and even I want a better long term future for white people.

You know which cultures practice the CEO-secretary strategy? East Asian ones. In places like China, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan, high-IQ men marry low-IQ women. Low-IQ men and high-IQ women end up staying single and childless. Now you all know that I have hundreds of nice things to say about the East Asians. They make fine friends, neighbors, classmates, teachers, and colleagues. But their mating strategies are hurting their long term future.

First of all, it's not even getting them a higher tfr. They have even lower tfrs than white people. Second, for lack of a better term, the CEO-secretary strategy produces "midgenic" results. When white people marry within their IQ/social class/education bracket, they create a lot of low-IQ losers, but also a lot of high-IQ individuals. If you haven't noticed by now, the biggest drawback for the East Asians is that their midgenic mating strategy gives them a society where everybody is a 5 in looks and has middling IQ. Sure, they don't have the grotesque June Shannons that white societies have, but they also don't have the Teslas, Newtons, and the Hawkings that white societies have.

tl;dr: don't piss away one of the few things (in my opinion) that white people do better than other peoples.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The ACA's rule covering 'kids' until they turn 26 is a perfect example of the growth in this trend (legal measures don't appear out of thin air). I know many people in their early and mid-twenties who in extended adolescence. Some are in 5th and 6th years of college with a few credits left to get an *associate's* degree. They live at home or in apartments with a couple others doing the same thing, living off some combination of debt, parental largesse and part-time jobs. They don't own anything--everything is leased and rented--and they don't have to pay for healthcare. I've taken to calling the twenties "the lost decade" because for a lot of these forever-adolescents, it is.

My wife's friend just moved to San Francisco from here in KC. They have a couple young kids. He's an engineer and they are typical strivers, upgrading to a different house 3 times in the 5 years I've known them. Now for all that they live in a house half the size of ours in an area where everything costs a bazillion bucks for... what I can't really say. She is back to working full-time now and their kids are in daycare. Even though he got something like a 40% raise in salary for the move (stayed with the same company) she never had to work when they lived here.

Dan,

Time to hit them up again. Fortunately the spending bill is salient and a lot of the congress critters are going to be scared of what happened to Corker and Flake, so this should be beatable.

Black Death,

Keynes didn't have any children, though I suppose in the very long run he is correct!

Anon,

I'm not sure if the putative narrower normal distribution is a result of BOSSS mating rather than East Asian conformity and relatively low openness to experience.

There doesn't seem to be much way to get smart women to have anything close to replacement fertility in the modern West. Might as well at least have smart men reproducing.

chris said...

@Anon

The distribution of women's IQ is smaller and the average is (possibly) lower by 1-3 points already. So 99th percentile men going for 99th percentile women are already dating down in IQ. (So there presumably already has been some sex selection for IQ in our species.)

Secondly, it's not about dating down in IQ anyway, it is about dating down in education. Education strips a woman of her youth and decreases her long term mating fitness (assuming she isn't pursuing a cad/short term mating strategy where she will be expected to support her and her children by herself.) A 35 year old 160 IQ Doctor marrying a 20 year old 145 IQ woman who never went to college and who he eventually has 5 children with is a better situation than a 35 year old 160 IQ Doctor marrying a 35 year old 145 IQ woman who went to college and is also a Doctor but they only have 1 child together over their reproductive lives.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

Your wife's friends moves to SF for the status. This is why few people move to KS, despite it being a cheap place to raise children.

Sure, my parents could have chosen to move to KS and had 5 kids instead of 2, but they wanted more for my brother and I. You guys don't have the elite prep schools and universities that we do. You guys don't have the elite social venues where one can meet top 1%ers like we do. You guys don't have the elite industries to the same extent as we do. To be fair, this stuff is mostly for my brother, who unlike me, was ambitious and hard-working enough to get into a Top 20 university. He now works in robotics where hopefully he will figure out how to automate every occupation traditionally done by low IQ people haha.

As for the East Asians, they have been practicing high IQ man - low IQ woman marriage for thousands of years. Of course it's having a major effect on them. If any group of people were to practice this type of marriage you should expect for their mean IQ to stay the same but the standard deviation to slowly go down over the years.

@chris

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...you think that it's easy to find an IQ 145 woman who has no post-high school education HAHAHAHAHA. I once did some calculations with regards to the percentage of white men and women at different IQ levels and the likelihood they have degrees. My finding was that once you get to 106 for white women and 108 for white men, they are more likely than not to have degrees. As IQ increases, the likelihood they have a degree keeps increasing. So what makes you think there are many IQ 125 white women, let alone IQ 145 white women, who have no degree?

Black Death said...

AE -

True, Keynes didn't have any children, but that's because he was gay.

chris said...

@Anon

It is a hypothetical. She could be 100 or 105 or 110 or 125. It doesn't really matter.

Besides, all IQ 145 (or any other high IQ) women existed at some point without college degrees. If you can get them at 20, it is better than getting them at 35, which was my entire point.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Your wife's friends moves to SF for the status. This is why few people move to KS, despite it being a cheap place to raise children.

Sure, my parents could have chosen to move to KS and had 5 kids instead of 2, but they wanted more for me and my brother


Exactly. And that's why the future is ours, not yours.

The status thus achieved is shallower than ever before, because there is so little that cannot be gotten virtually from anywhere, instantaneously. There is little epistemologically unique an elite institution can offer--relatively less so than any other time in the last couple of centuries, and it's that will be even more descriptive tomorrow than it was yesterday. Outside of a few high-end specialties (like robotics), it's credentialism and networking and nothing more. That still matters, of course, but not as much as it used to.

Chris,

Right. Educational attainment, for women especially, is fitness-reducing. There's no way around the descriptive validity of that assertion.

Corvinus said...

Chris--"Education strips a woman of her youth and decreases her long term mating fitness"

Then it would appear that tens of millions of men have been duped. So how do you propose to offer a plan of action that will stop dead in its tracks this massive fuck-up by men?

CH--"Conflating runaway credentialism with IQ misses the fact that today’s paper pushing woman with a communications degree was yesterday’s equally competent secretary with a high school degree."

Except the woman with the communications degree is making 2x the money as the secretary and is able to parlay her career to wooing that "high status man", who generally prefers looks and intelligence and a whole host of factors that make her a potential mate. Besides, any "advice" that CH gives in this regard runs on fumes, given the fact that his 20's, 30's, and 40's have nothing been but a perpetual carnival ride.

Sid--"If you're well educated, it's more likely you will get the kind of white collar workaholic job where you work 10-12 hours a day. Men can work those kinds of hours and still have children if their wives have light work loads."

Except men want their toys to play with. So you are going to have to somehow convince the majority of men not to buy that souped up Ram Truck, or have their hunting redoubt up north, or their season tickets for the professional sport of choice. In other words, there has to be a massive paradigm shift.

"It's simply beyond the capacity of most women to work those kinds of hours and raise a family (pregnancy, birth, and the female role in raising children are all far more time and energy intensive than the process of fathering and raising children is for men. End of story)."

Maybe, maybe not.

Feryl--"Dipshits who do drugs and sleep around need to be cut off."

So that would include CH and Roosh, right? Are you on their blogs publicly shaming them for their nefarious activities?

Chris--"High IQ educated white men should be marrying women in their early twenties who don't want to be career women/single mothers."

Should, being the operative word here. But, unfortunately, most white men make their own decisions regarding career, marriage, and family. Damn them for having that liberty since they generally make dysgenic choices.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Should, being the operative word here. But, unfortunately, most white men make their own decisions regarding career, marriage, and family. Damn them for having that liberty since they generally make dysgenic choices

Social pressures influence decisions. A lot of young men make their way to the dissident right--and I include PUAs thus--out of a sense of frustration, that something is missing, that they've been sold a bill of goods. They're hungry for what they ought or ought not do. Sure, it's ultimately their choice, but arguing in favor of this or that is largely the reason many of them are here in the first place.

chris said...

"Should, being the operative word here. But, unfortunately, most white men make their own decisions regarding career, marriage, and family. Damn them for having that liberty since they generally make dysgenic choices."

Studies show that as men age, they still find women in their early twenties the most attractive. And I have seen evidence that, provided the man is attractive, older age does not matter that much to women. I think nature will take it's course and sort this one out. (High IQ and TFR is above replacement for men for instance.)

The only thing I am concerned with is older women trying to establish a norm that men should not marry down in status/age as a way to try and seal off all the older men (that they themselves find desirable (women generally do not desire younger men)) for themselves. Pushing back against the creation of such a norm (and the reasons for its creation) is probably the only work that needs doing in the culture in that regard.